Today's Software and IT industries are plagued by programming errors. While some of these errors are the result of illegal use of non-Microsoft software on rogue networks, the majority of problems stem from difficulties in mingling code of different programming languages. Standarization on the best-of-breed programming language, C++, would undoubtedly reduce errors in software.

In this article, I seek to dispel the myth that non-C++ languages are beneficial in proper Software Engineering. I outline how standardization on the C++ language can strengthen your corporation's bottom line. And I describe how to contact the men in Congress to have C++ use finally made legally mandatory.

C++, a programming language invented by Lucent's Bjarney Strupstrup in 1995, has been hailed as a God-send to Computer Science since its creation. Based on Richie Kerninghan's language "C+", C++ brought several previously-theoretical programming languages features to the mainstream:

----------
Church-Rosser ComplianceKnown as "multiple inheritance" in the programming world and as "being Church-Rosser" in academia, C++'s compliance to this IEEE standard immediately placed it head-and-shoulders above other languages. "Churrossity" allows programmers to use blocks of code, called "objects," in place of other blocks of code ("arrays".) The layman can think of this as "allowing 'new' code to 'run' old code." This advance has not been possible in previous logic-based languages such as Ada.

Multi-Byte CharactersC++ allowed use of "Beaster," a subset of Microsoft's COM ("Common Object Model") windowing layer. The Beaster system allows non-English-speakers such as the Welsh to use computing technology, as it could redirect the signals used to display non-English characters on a computer's monitor screen or laser printer. It is also useful in helping the blind, who speak a specialized subset of English called "ALS."

Pass-By-TextA non-recursive pass-by-text mechanism existed in Kerninghan's C+, called "macro facility." But Strupstrup did Kerninghan one better with the "String Template Loader" variable passing mechanism, which allowed text to be passed to procedures at run-time. This sped up code execution times, as code could be compiled while the user was running the program. This eliminated speed loss caused by incompatibility from obselete computer chips (Motorola and ADM.)
----------

The superiority of C++ over other languages should be obvious. But is switching to it from other languages possible in your corporation? Astute observers will note that the eco-terrorist group FSF produces a C++ compiler called "DJGPP." Under President Bush's War on Terror, any organization supporting a terrorist organization is recursively itself a terrorist organization.

Corporations needn't worry. Microsoft has its own C++ offering, "Visual Studio." As an added bonus, Microsoft Visual Studio is highly standards compliant. It features a visual programming interface, and several features not found elsewhere (such as a visual debugger and an AOL instant messanger client called "Windows Messaging".)

But these advantages can only be realized if code written in inferior languages can be kept from polluting the inter-web eco-space. When compilers for other languages are available, low-level managers are tempted to write code in them. Why? Often times, managers are brought up from the ranks of Software Engineers, and thus lack an Executive's sense for using the right tool for the job. When these managers write code in a jungled zoo of languages, code in one program is unable to interact with code from another program (churrossity.) Only by standardizing on C++ can all programs run together smoothly. Using C++ to eliminate software errors will jump-start the sagging technology industry. This will boost our economy as a whole, which in turn will help us to win the War on Terror.

The effort to legally mandate this has been going on for a while. But it needs your help. Even the smallest person, such as a reader of this site, can make a difference with his Congressman. Congressmen are kept highly versed in technical issues by lobbyists from Microsoft and Intel. But without strong grassroots input, the men of Congress and the Senate are powerless to heed the corporations' pleas.

That was supposed to read JAVA not JUava. Also if you visit the MSDN Library, Microsoft maintains many documents which outline the pros and cons of C++.

Then he go into all this crap about interacting and working together. Then there's stuff about executive sense. Amazingly he doesn't know that any executive worth a shit knows that a single solution doesn't work for everyone.

Obviously this was written by someone just wanting attantion. While it may very well be Yoshi, I tend to think it's elenchos. The same ignorrance found in his ban programming article makes me think it's his handiwork.

Anyone with any sense can tell you that simply switching to a single language won't solve all the problems mentioned. Solid code and good practices like peer review and beta testing. And when I say beta testing I'm not talk about the "here's WindowsXP Release 1 for the general public to give us an opinion on whether or not they think the new GUI is pretty".

I tried writing a program using C++ and it didn't even do anything. When I write programs in Visual Basic (The Pro Version) they almost always work pretty well. Obviously, C++ has some serious problems. Besides that I can easily get lots of sample programs that I can modify to suit my needs. I saved my company thousands of dollars by making some simple changes to some sample programs to make a program to track the employees I manage time and attendance and print out weekly reports. I did this in only a couple of days of work. Who knows how long that would take with some obscure programming language like C++? Probably 6 to 8 months, I would guess.

Yes, the fact that you cannot write a proper application in C++ doesn't mean it is defunct, it means you are stupid. C++, although harder to understand than VB is far smoother and more efficient on system resources. Also, there is no "Pro Version" of VB...the language is the same no matter what, you are just refering to your compiler version, also the fact that you just edit sample programs, or steal other peoples work, shows you have no clue what the hell you are talking about, you don't know anything about programming, and have no business making posts with opinions that have no value in the first place.

The guy has every right to complain (none / 0) (#46)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:00:36 PM PST

As a long time C++ programmer, I've enjoyed exploiting many of the features to thier limits so my solutions could have the best of both worlds, but I understand at the same time that not everybody should have to work with such an advanced tool to solve simple problems.

His concerns and complains are legitimate. With an expanding need for programmers we need more languages like Java, C#, VB.Net that bridge the gap between a flexible systems language and an application development language.

How can I take this idea serious when strings (A very fundamental element of ANY programming language) aren't even standardized?

I now understand how to get a story approved for the front page... if you can manage to combine references to Microsoft and AOL, misused phrases in quotations, obscure logic, and the word "eco-terrorist" into one article, then it's a veritable lock for posting, I guess.
However, the strange lack of self-referential links, or links of any kind for that matter, is disconcerting... only one half-assed attempt at humorous misdirection at the very end? It's like it was only an afterthought...

UH mandatory no... (none / 0) (#11)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 11:55:10 PM PST

C++ is great and all but its a harder language to learn. Of course we don't want anything to be easy for anyone since that would make sense...

Your argument makes some sense. Sure in this time when people are so scared of violated licenses (just shows the cut and paste mentality of even large corporations) it could be considered difficult. There are easier languages to learn.

All in all your argument would make more since if you listed what languages C++ was more difficult to learn than.

Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

heres a few (none / 0) (#19)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 04:08:26 PM PST

Basic (lol I know)
C+ (I found it easyer then C++, Just my opinion.)
I am not sure of anything else I only tryed them two and C++, a few of my friends liked Peral, but I think its overrated.

story from eSolutions. He is especially perceptive when it comes to 'beasters'. Old languages including C+ used simple arwys of letters to make strings. The 'beaster' however features numerous levels of misdirection before you can find the underlying string data thus neatly fitting in with the whole C++ philosophy.

Yes, but think about it. This would result in two separate but equally important benefits:

Since C++ is the best programming language there is, washing machine controllers would benefit from huge performance and functionality improvements. This is important, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you about all the recent deaths attributed to washing machine controller malfunction. If public confidence in washing machine controllers increased, this would give a much-needed boost to the flagging washing machine controller industry.

Since C++ introduced the new __controlwashingmachine keyword, writing advanced washing machine controller software would become much easier. This would mean a threefold increase in washing machine production, since as you know writing the controller is currently a huge bottleneck. More washing machines means cheaper washing machines, and cheaper washing machines mean even children and the elderly can appear in public with clean clothes.

The only real obstacle to standardizing on C++, as I see it, is the competing language Apple Logo, which was specifically engineered to control washing machines. It's difficult to predict which language those Washington fatcats will choose.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

Washing machines would have to become almost twice the size, to contain the heatsink for the CPU. Not only that, they'd need about an 80Gb hard disk, which would require a large, bulky shock mount. Otherwise, when it went into spin cycle, the vibration would cause a head crash.<p>
If you used a small, low-power CPU, you could make a small washing machine, capable of being run off batteries, or a car cigar lighter extension lead, or something. This washing machine would be smaller and easier to carry than the conventional machines we're all used to, so you could wash your clothes wherever you go. Just imagine, being able to have clean clothes while on the move, without carrying huge bags of clothes. Think for a moment - which is more efficient? Carrying a great big bag of clean clothes, and a bag to carry them when they get dirty so they don't get mixed up? Or carrying only two or three changes of clothes and a personal washing machine?

However, what I think you fail to account for is the fact that hard drives will soon be made obsolete by some kind of solid state persistent secondary storage mechanism -- perhaps Cheetos-related -- that will make the shock mount unnecessary. No moving parts = no head crash.

The heat sink issue is more problematic, but I believe technology can save us there as well. If the CPU were engineered to use cold electrons -- the kind of electrons that are generated by cold fusion and, in lesser concentrations, other naturally occurring phenomenon, the amount of heat generated would be minimal. I believe the United States Army Corp of Engineers is conducting trials with cold electrons for the purposes of sabotage. If an unfriendly nation's (read: Canada's) electrical grid were contaminated with cold electrons, temperatures in electricity using homes would plummet, and electric blankets would only exacerbate the problem. This would prevent their military from wanting to leave home. If these trials are successful, it will certainly prove that cold electrons are adequate to the task of obviating the need for a massive heat sink on a washing machine controller's CPU.

As for the personal washing machine, I don't think it will ever catch on. If we didn't have to go to laundromats to do our laundry, how would we ever get laid? It takes three generations to prepare for a change of that magnitude, and our species would be extinctified after only one.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

Most people have washing machines at home, even in very small flats or apartments. It's *really* unusual to rent a place that doesn't have a washing machine, and the absence of such common household appliances is good for getting about fifty quid a month of your rent.

Dishwashers aren't that popular though. Odd, eh?

Ahhh... (none / 0) (#47)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 10:18:28 PM PST

Right.. Assembly is good for mass-number crunching, ya? Good as objects. But honestly, are you going to sit there and write a GUI in asm? Are you going to sit there and write your program for every processor it's intended to run on?

Assembly is good for making little objects, massively-called functions and things that require doing the same thing to a large range of stuff (eg: drawing to the screen), etc, but really a pain for anything else.

you really should put a link to the UN, EU, NAFTA etc as to insure this will be forced internationally -as the Welsh are not bound by US laws. And I dread to think what will happen if the Welsh will continue to code in VB and other inferior languages relying on knowledge of English.

spelling C (none / 0) (#17)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 01:57:58 PM PST

Thanks for that article, I needed a good laugh this morning.
I've programmed in Ada, Java, C, C++ and machine code. All of my programs run on military applications. Ada is good, Java is good, C and C++ are both messy, over complicated, under powered and prone to errors.

Or is the only reason you actually wrote about C++ is because any other language is to difficult for you to spell easily?

Have you tried running them on LPG I gather you get greater performance at reduced cost, with minimal conversion costs.

Re: C++ should be the only programming language (none / 0) (#23)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 11:55:44 PM PST

This is the first time I've been to adequacy.org. The link that I followed gave the impression that this is a serious website. Was I misled? Even as a joke this article is unbearable stupid: full of wrong assertions and living proof that some people have to mouth off about subjects they are completely uninformed about

Flogging a dead horse (none / 0) (#34)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 02:46:16 PM PST

This site 'may' take itself seriously, and one or two people may take what they read seriously (which franky scares me there are people like this).
I come on here to read this drival for the same reason I read the comics in the sunday paper, its a good laugh at times.

As you can plainly see, this is either a (now) very old and tired joke web site, or if they are serious about what they put up, I would seriously like some variety, you know, something new to laugh at. Seeing the same old boring stories and the same old boring phobias and misinformed drivel from people who don't know better only makes me smile at their stale rantings.

:-)

Enjoy your laugh and relax. If these "issue's" were as important and vital as they want you to believe, more people would be talking about it, instead of laughing about it.

legislative frenzies (none / 0) (#25)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 01:12:59 AM PST

i don't know anything about computers. i bet most lawmakers don't either. after reading the article, and comments to it, i'm betting you also don't. this is why neither myself nor you nor government should be telling anyone how to use computers. but the more i read the articles on this website, the more I think they are written expressly to provoke people into getting livid with their opinions. i've seen too many oddball, un- or misinformed, generally irrational statements in the last hour on adequacy.org. can someone tell me whether this website is for real?

your local mental health institute. Ask them to examine your sanity and see if they will throw in some electro-convulsive therapy whilst you are there. If you are found to be sane then it is likely that this website is real and not some personal delusion. Of course Matrix style manipulations of reality cannot be ruled out so a definitive answer cannot be given - but we'll leave third rate philosophy to the third rate philosophers.

Also don't go blaming people for getting the link wrong. If you had bothered to read the adequacyFAQ you would have found this:

Why does story X have such strange links in the text?

Adequacy.org is a pioneer in artificial intelligence neural network technologies, and we are developing AUTOLINK (TM), an ,a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/transmission.htm">automatic link generator which scans Adequacy stories and inserts relevant hypertext links for the keywords and phrases it finds. While our careful, double-screened tests reveal that AUTOLINK (TM) generates high quality links in a much more cost-efficient way than humans, still it ocassionally inserts the bad link.

AUTOLINK (TM) has a lower error rate than humans doing comparable tasks, yet a much higher speed, allowing more links to be generated. The fact that humans have smaller absolute error rates only reflects the fact that the amount of links they generate is a few orders of magnitude smaller. Thus, AUTOLINK overall performs better.

So the reason that whitehouse linked to whitehouse.com was due to a failure of this otherwise excellent AI. No doubt it was confused by Clinton's escapades and considered the link appropriate.

2. The interweb thing was funny for about 5 sec. And that was a long damn time ago when it appeared in some other article/post. Yes it is funnier than inter-Net but it's time to let it go.

3. The "AUTOLINK" idea is nothing new so Adequacy.org is pioneering nothing. Microsoft got so much bad press when it attempted to implement the feature into various programs including Intenret Explorer.

EXAMPLE 1 >>> Coke puts up up comparison information about Coca Cola and Pepsi. Anytime Pepsi were used the text would be linked to their corporate website. Most smart companies don't provide numerous links to their competitors products all over their website.

It's obviously that if Adquacy.org is using some sort of "autolink" it's not working very well. Numerous words throughout the article were missed.

I refuse to consider the existence of someone as thick as you pretend to be, or seriously entertain the schizophrenic possibility that RobotSlave's multiple personalities are desperately lonely for each other's conversation. Both are clearly ridiculous propositions; therefore, in the manner of Euclidean geometry, you are here under false pretenses.

You disgust me.

A strict deontologist pondering the ethics communication would say that trolling is morally wrong because it conflicts with what one believes to be genuinely true.
A situationist would object, giving the example of someone trolling to save a friend's life. "What makes trolling right is its loving purpose," he would patiently explain, but I do not think you have friends, Dekiton, so the situationist exits stage.

The Bible lays out many commands and parables regarding the practice of trolling. Although deception is occasionally acceptable and even praised in the situationist sense, trolling is consistently portrayed as being a very serious sin. The Ninth Commandment states, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Generations of biblical scholars have interpreted the Ninth Commandment as an injunction against devising and designing to deceive our neighbor, dishonor God or prejudice our innocent readers by influencing their opinions in advance of the distorted facts. Trolling makes us like the devil, who is the father of lies. "Do not troll one another," Paul wrote to the church in Colossae (Colossians 3:9).

Christianity is not exceptional on the subject of trolling. Insignificant religions from backward cultures also support the idea that telling the truth is good, while trolling is wrong. According to an ancient, condensed but memorable Hindu saying embodying an important fact of experience taken as true by many people, "Sacrifice and the merit of alms are obliterated by a troll." One recently unearthed Babylonian text promises the fury that awaits trolls: "Whose mouth was full of Yea, in his heart full of Nay, I command thou burn him to the ground." Homer wrote in the sodomy epic, the Iliad, "Hateful to me as are the gates of Hades is that man who says one thing, and hides another in his heart."

Finally, and this is the worst of your calumny, Adequacy has a strict no trolling policy.

In a controversial twist today, the White House has declared that "that moron eSolutions" is no longer allowed to continue existing. This is the first time that the government has ever actually outlawed the existence of an individual. The legislation is currently being written up, and eSolutions will soon be completely illegal. President George W. Bush declared "I believe that to win the War on Terror, we must first win the war on stupidity. Even satirical stupidity. Therefore I am outlawing this moron, in an attempt to improve the gene pool, and to aid humanity in any way that I can".

*siiiigh .... *

we can always hope...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.